Aletho News


The Weaponization of the WHO

Corbett • 12/18/2022

via CHD.TV: Solve the intentionally confusing puzzle about what the WHO’s 2023 plans are regarding the “zero draft” for a new and potentially legally binding pandemic treaty, International Health Regulation amendments, recent Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Meetings and more. Learn all about the corrupt public health organization “with teeth” with guest James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D on ‘Good Morning CHD.’



Background to my interview with James Corbett, as requested by a reader

Third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for a WHO instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

WATCH: Latest WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Meetings

World Health Organization meets to plot censorship of “misinformation” under international pandemic treaty

World Health Organization meets to discuss granting of increased surveillance powers under pandemic treaty

Conceptual zero draft for the consideration of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body at its third meeting

Smith Mundt Act

Review Committee regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)

IHR Amendments Text

Public Health Emergency Of International Concern (PHEIC)

IHR (2005) Text

Ebola Newsweek Article

Wayback Machine — April 2009 Definition Of ‘Influenza Pandemic’

Wayback Machine — May 2009 Definition Of ‘Influenza Pandemic’

WHO chief declares monkeypox an international emergency after expert panel fails to reach consensus

Peter Doshi H1N1 Response

Peter Doshi ‘The Elusive Definition Of Pandemic Influenza’

Who Is Bill Gates? Corbett Report Documentary

MAiD in Canada – #NewWorldNextWeek

December 22, 2022 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video |


  1. Here is a time-line…and this video confirms it.

    The ‘teeth’ James Corbett is talking about.


    Comment by Sparrow | December 22, 2022 | Reply

    • With consideration starting @51:15…filling this information with the root cause of “Nazi’s started with disabled children”…is a flat out lie in which Ms Nass needs to Prove her typical tribal accusations. This use of ‘Nazi’ as the root of every single issue in these last days tells me of the tribe that is narrating both ends. Shocked that James went along with this.


      Comment by Sparrow | December 22, 2022 | Reply

    AKTION T 4
    In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler himself had spelled out the Nazi notion of “racial hygiene,” writing that Germany “must see to it that only the healthy beget children” using “modern medical means.” The Nazis believed this would produce Germans fit for the workforce, military service, and so on — while weeding out all others.

    And as soon as the Nazis swept into power in 1933, they implemented laws that mandated sterilization for the physically and mentally disabled. It didn’t take much to become a victim of this program. Most victims were sent to be sterilized due to a vague diagnosis of “feeblemindedness,” while blindness, deafness, epilepsy, and alcoholism accounted for some of the other sterilizations.

    All in all, the Nazis forcibly sterilized some 400,000 people. But once the war began in 1939, the Nazis’ plans for the disabled grew even darker.


    Inside the Aktion T4 program, the little-known Nazi euthanasia initiative that killed as many as 300,000 disabled people.

    Nazi authorities executed a massive yet lesser-known program of targeted mass killing aimed at some of the most vulnerable people under their control: the disabled.

    Starting as a euthanasia program that eliminated disabled infants and children deemed unfit to live and expanding in time to cover disabled adults and the elderly, the program ended in 1941 amid a welter of protests from many quarters of German society.

    This murder of German children had no official name and was known in Germany only by the address where it was headquartered:
    4 Tiergartenstraße, Berlin, which inspired the name Aktion T4.

    Nazi eugenics posters from 1935 illustratesd what they believed to be the dangers of allowing so-called genetic undesirables to live, reproduce, and account for a larger percentage of the gene pool than those with desired traits.

    The ideological underpinnings of Aktion T4 were apparent in Nazi thinking from the party’s very beginnings. Nazi leaders had long preached the gospel of eugenics, calling for scientific control over Germany’s gene pool with the aim of improving it through state action.

    In early 1939, an odd letter arrived at the office of the Nazi Party Chancellery from a German man and Nazi loyalist named Richard Kretschmar. He was trying to contact Hitler directly in hopes of gaining clearance to legally euthanize his own son, Gerhard, who had been born just a few months earlier with severe and incurable physical and mental disabilities including missing limbs, blindness, and convulsions (the original medical records are lost and second-hand accounts vary).

    Kretschmar asked Hitler to let them have this “monster” put down. Hitler then sent his own physician, Dr. Karl Brandt, to look into the case. On inspection, Brandt decided the diagnosis had been correct, that he was an “idiot,” and there was no hope for improvement. Thus Gerhard was killed by lethal injection on July 25, 1939. His death certificate stated the cause of death as “heart weakness.”

    Having now broken the ice, Hitler and company immediately set into a motion a plan that would call for the killing of the physically and mentally disabled in Germany en masse.


    By Richard Stockton | Checked By John Kuroski
    Published December 13, 2016
    Updated March 20, 2018
    “There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the American Union.” – Adolf Hitler

    In 1942, a North Carolina social worker remanded the 14-year-old Virginia Brooks to state custody. Brooks had no idea what the government had in store for her.

    Temporarily placed in an apartment building that doubled as a state hospital, authorities told Brooks that she had to have her appendix removed. Instead, doctors gave her a radical hysterectomy and told her that she could never have children.
    With this act of medical mutilation, which North Carolina law sanctioned at the time, Brooks became one of more than 7,600 young people in her state alone — and more than 60,000 nationwide — sterilized under the United States’ eugenics policies.

    These policies ran for decades in the U.S., and even after the Supreme Court reviewed cases stemming from them. Between World War I and the early 1970s, some 32 states passed laws restricting citizens’ rights to have children, most specifically targeting racial and ethnic minorities and the poor.

    The late 19th century brought about increased scientific understanding of heredity and selective breeding, and a number of thinkers began to wonder whether the same principles farmers used to breed good stock could also apply to humans.

    The idea took flight, and proponents of the new “eugenics” (the name means “good breeding”) societies were quick to claim the mantle of objective science in their quest to engineer a society of enhanced humans.
    Of course, these “enhanced” humans often reflected the appearance of those calling for eugenics in the first place. They tended to be white, and they were almost always financially successful.

    Old money families from Europe and North America viewed themselves as the pinnacle of the human race, and thus started to pour millions of dollars into international efforts to promote good breeding and to reduce what they called “the multiplication of the unfit.”

    Plans for achieving this varied across the legal climates in different nations.
    Some plans focused on “positive eugenics,” which rewarded favored parents for having children. Others proposed “negative eugenics,” a catchall term that covered everything from voluntary abstinence and sterilization programs to forced deportations and mass murder.
    The irony is that it all began with good intentions.

    The idea that some people simply clutter up the Earth isn’t new. After all, some say that the ancient Greeks abandoned weak infants in the wild, lest they grow up to be burdens to the state.

    In more modern times, as far back as 1798, an Anglican churchman named Robert Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principles of Population, in which he argued in favor of Ireland’s infamous Corn Laws. These imposed starvation laws, Malthus argued, could have a salutary effect on the Irish peasantry by eliminating excess population.

    Without the laws, he argued, the Irish would breed beyond all measure and cause a greater catastrophe down the road. Powerful players in the British Empire took this line of reasoning seriously for half a century, and didn’t repeal the laws that prohibited importing food to Ireland until years into the 1840s’ deadly famine.
    Though the word “eugenics” hadn’t yet been coined, the principles were clearly visible in British policy toward Ireland: Deny food, let the famine kill hundreds of thousands, and write it off as the natural effect of an oversized population of unfit humans.

    The “scientific” age of eugenics began shortly after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. It’s important to point out that Darwin never associated with “good eugenics,” nor is he known to have had a kind word to say about applying survival of the fittest principles to human beings. If anything, Darwin’s keen insight into the death and misery natural selection imposed on nature may have made him hesitant to support anything similar for people.

    Darwin died in 1882. One year later, Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term “eugenics” and began proselytizing the new faith. By 1910, professors taught eugenics as an academic discipline at scores of universities, and well-funded political action groups had sprung up to push legislation in a direction which would encourage eugenics. By and large, they succeeded.

    The British Eugenics Society came to life in 1907, and began hosting international symposia on improving the human “germ line.” The Society aimed to stamp out congenital, physical and psychological disability, reduce criminality, and promote “improved” human populations. The traits that counted as improvements went largely unsaid; presumably they were whatever traits the upper-class British possessed.

    Everywhere eugenics societies operated, they succeeded in recruiting support from institutions. In England, the Society appealed to clergy and industrial leaders; in America, the most productive approach was through politics and racism. By 1921, the American Society had formed, and it quickly got restrictive anti-miscegenation laws passed in several states.

    Still, some forms of resistance developed. Immediately following World War I, the Wilson Administration worked to segregate the Executive Branch of the government, and with great success.
    The Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, spent 1919 and 1920 vigorously persecuting labor leaders such as Eugene Debs. In response, several civil rights groups combined to form the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), with the explicit aim of using the court system to force showdowns over civil rights.

    One of their first cases they took on was Buck v. Bell, which the Supreme Court heard in 1927.

    The details of the Buck v. Bell case were fairly straightforward. Carrie Buck, whose unmarried mother was committed to an insane asylum while Buck was a teenager, was remanded into the custody of a foster family in her native Virginia. When the underage Carrie Buck got pregnant, she couldn’t say whether the baby belonged to her foster father or foster brother, but she did report abuse to her social worker.

    Instead of filing charges against the family that had taken Buck in (and then raped her), the state remanded the girl to a state hospital. While there, the warden gave Buck a choice: She could leave the hospital if she agreed to sterilization, or she could give up her baby and languish in the facility forever. Reaching out to the ACLU, Buck sued.
    When the case got to the Supreme Court, the issue at stake was whether the state had an interest in regulating reproduction that exceeded the rights of “feebleminded” citizens to breed.

    After hearing the case, no less than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes issued the 8-1 decision that the “promiscuous” Carrie Buck’s rights were subordinate to Virginia’s right to limit breeding among the unfit, and that compulsory and coerced sterilization do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

    To quote directly from the majority opinion, which Holmes wrote himself:
    We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

    Holmes concluded with the opinion that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.”

    To date, the Supreme Court has never definitively overturned this ruling, and it remains the controlling precedent, though Virginia’s eugenics law was repealed in 1974. Incidentally, no evidence shows that Carrie Buck’s mother was actually insane, nor did Buck ever demonstrate mental instability herself.

    Carrie Buck’s misfortune was just a drop in the ocean. By the mid-1930s, 32 states had laws on the books regulating residents’ reproductive rights. Some took a “soft” line and outlawed race mixing, while others empowered civil servants to round up children and carry out invasive surgical procedures with varying levels of consent.

    Some, like Virginia Brooks, were lied to about what was being done. Others were taken from their families and told they couldn’t go home unless they “consented” to either a tubal ligation, a hysterectomy, or a vasectomy. California alone carried out an estimated 20,000 forced sterilizations between 1909 and the 1960s.

    In 1942, the same year the North Carolina government sterilized Brooks, the Supreme Court revisited the issue. In an Oklahoma case, the Court ruled against the sterilization of incarcerated criminals on Equal Protection grounds.
    This did not reverse the 1927 Buck case, but expanded it. The Court said that Oklahoma could not wantonly sterilize violent criminals…unless it also sterilized white collar criminals.

    Other states took notice and expanded their programs accordingly. In North Carolina, arguably the most aggressive eugenics promoter, social workers had only to bring individuals (often black and Hispanic resident, or white hillbillies) before a board and demonstrate that the individual had a sub-70 IQ. The boards almost never rejected a proposal to sterilize.

    Throughout the 1920s and ’30s, European eugenicists envied their American counterparts’ success.

    European countries, with long histories and heavy cultural norms to overcome, proved resistant to eugenics at first. Even the Catholic Church lodged an objection to the proposed laws; not because it violated people’s rights, but because surgical contraception does nothing to limit promiscuity and other sins.

    In this climate, it would take a dramatic upheaval to change Europe’s foot-dragging approach to state control over the means of reproduction.
    Precisely that kind of upheaval came in 1933, when the Nazi Party came to power in Germany. Over the next 12 years, the Third Reich would impose such a brutal regime of eugenic social manipulation that even the staunchest eugenics proponents abroad would halt their operations.

    Nazi Germany’s flirtation with eugenics began with a set of 1933 laws that excluded Jews from trade, professions, and civil service. Eventually, these policies would bear fruit in the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, which made it a criminal offense for Germans to marry Jews or to have their children. Couples wishing to marry would have to present valid ID and swear under oath that they were pure Aryans.

    The Reich disallowed name changes, even though they required all Jewish men to take the middle name “Israel,” and Jewish women “Sarah.” They also deported thousands of Polish immigrants, many of them Jewish, from Reich territory.

    Sometime in 1938, a regional Nazi organizer sent a letter to Hitler’s Reich Chancellery office. In the letter, the man complained that his physically disabled son burdened his family, and requested that the boy be “put down.” Hitler passed the request to his own physician (who would later be executed for war crimes) and had the child killed by lethal injection.
    This sparked a new industry in Germany practically overnight. Sensing the will of the Fuhrer, the Party opened an office at 4 Tiergartenstrasse in Berlin, from which the T-4 program got its name.

    Eventually, every live birth in Germany required that the attending doctor or midwife fill out a form noting any apparent physical or mental disability in the baby. If any appeared, they would mark the corner of the form with a cross. A second doctor would then review the documents and approve removing the child to one of half a dozen special killing centers and end its life.

    Older children, disabled adults, and the elderly were snared in the project as well. Nazis would drive the subjects to facilities, where they would receive paper gowns to wear during their “delousing.” After the Nazis had sealed the shower rooms, they would pump carbon monoxide in to kill them.

    Word of the program eventually leaked, and opposition from the Church forced a halt to the killings in 1941, after perhaps 60,000 people had died.
    Nazi eugenics wasn’t all mass murder, however. If a girl happened to be of a favored racial background, the Nazis entitled her to join the Lebensborn program, which SS leader Heinrich Himmler described as the closest to his own heart. Lebensborn girls had one purpose — breed.

    Program administrators would organize huge events for thousands of German girls to meet soldiers and SS men and set up temporary cohabitations in order to get the girls pregnant. Himmler went out of his way to quash rumors that the project was a brothel, even prohibiting SS men from visiting the girls in the large estates the SS took over to house them.

    During the war, no matter how bad things were for civilians, girls at the Lebensborn houses always had fresh food and easy living. The young mothers could decide for themselves whether they would raise their babies themselves or give them up to state orphanages.
    In all, the Lebensborn program may have produced some 25,000 children. After the war, these children and their “collaborator” mothers were subjected to brutal retaliation, prompting many — including Anni-Frid Lyngstad of ABBA, whose mother was Norwegian and her father in the Wehrmacht — to flee to Sweden.

    The vengeance that occupied people took on Lebensborn children points to the general disgust that the world felt for eugenics after World War II.
    Suddenly, with images of concentration camps like Dachau etched into people’s brains, it became acutely dangerous to promote breeding control or social engineering projects. Powerful people who had spent the ’30s crowing about sterilization were suddenly confronted with horror stories from Slavs and Jews whose ovaries had been torn out, and men whose testicles had been fried with X-rays.

    Overnight, without any fanfare, the various eugenics societies folded up and went away. States gradually repealed their sterilization laws, and the the Supreme Court swept away remaining anti-miscegenation codes with its 1967 ruling on Loving v. Virginia.
    Incidentally, eugenics may yet have some life in it.
    Actually-scientific research has identified individual genes and gene complexes behind identifiable congenital disorders, from deafness or Huntington’s disease to genetic predispositions toward certain types of cancer. Direct manipulation of genes is increasingly cost-effective, and the prospect of “designer babies” has been on the public’s mind for years.
    If eugenics does make a comeback, it will thus probably be on a somewhat tighter leash than it was the first time around.


    Comment by Pip | December 22, 2022 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: